International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

South Africa: How the MLI will impact on investment structures involving Mauritius


Those investing into South African companies via Mauritius need to evaluate whether they can defend their structures against any future PPT related challenges that may arise.

South Africa and Mauritius are popular holding jurisdictions for investment into other African jurisdictions because of tax relief afforded under these countries' tax treaty networks, particularly in regard to withholding taxes. Although South Africa itself is often used as a direct gateway into Africa, many South African headquartered groups and other South African taxpayers also make use of Mauritius as a holding company jurisdiction for sub-Saharan African investments.

Both South Africa and Mauritius are signatories to the OECD's Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). Certain existing and future investment structures need to be analysed in light of this.

At the time of signature of the MLI, Mauritius submitted a list of 23 tax treaties that it would like to designate as covered tax agreements (CTAs). This list excludes a similar number of tax treaties which Mauritius has said may be amended in due course through bilateral negotiations. Interestingly, the treaties selected by Mauritius as CTAs do not include Mauritius' treaties with sub-Saharan African countries other than Madagascar, South Africa and Swaziland. This means that Mauritius' treaties with countries such as Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Zambia will continue to apply in their existing form until such time as they may be amended through bilateral negotiation, a process which is not certain to happen and which if it does, could be very time consuming.

For investors making use of Mauritius as a holding company for investments into these sub-Saharan African countries, therefore, it is likely to be 'business as usual' for the foreseeable future in terms of any tax treaty benefits afforded by the target countries to Mauritius. These will not be affected by the MLI.

By contrast, since both Mauritius and South Africa have signed the MLI and selected the Mauritius-South Africa treaty as a CTA, structures involving a Mauritian holding company owning investments in or through South Africa could be vulnerable to challenge and loss of South African treaty benefits once the principal purpose test (PPT) in the MLI takes effect.

Mauritius has accepted the PPT rule as an interim measure, but stated that in time it intends to adopt a detailed limitation of benefits provision in its CTAs through bilateral negotiation. South Africa has opted for the PPT rule to apply to all of its CTAs. Article 7(4) of the MLI provides that a person that is denied the benefits of a CTA under the PPT may still qualify for those benefits if on request and after due consideration, the relevant competent authority determines this to be appropriate. However, although Mauritius has elected for Article 7(4) to apply to its CTAs, South Africa has not done so. Consequently no Article 7(4) relief will be available under the Mauritius-South Africa treaty should treaty benefits be denied under the PPT.

It is important for investors holding into South African companies via Mauritius to evaluate the extent to which the commercial rationale for their structures will enable them to defend any future PPT related challenges that may arise.


Leani Nortjé

Anne Bennett

Leani Nortjé ( and Anne Bennett (

Webber Wentzel

Tel: +27 11 5305886


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

An intense period of lobbying and persuasion is under way as the UN secretary-general’s report on the future of international tax cooperation begins to take shape. Ralph Cunningham reports.
Fresh details of the European Commission’s state aid case against Amazon emerge, while a pension fund is suing Amgen over its tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service.
The OECD’s rules may be impossible for businesses to manage, according to tax experts from companies including Shell.
The UK government is now committed to replacing the ‘super-deduction’ with a 100% capital allowances regime to offset the impact of the corporate tax rise to 25%.
Corporate tax is set to rise in the UK for the first time in decades, but the headline rate remains historically low despite what many observers think.
President Joe Biden’s nominee is set to be confirmed as IRS commissioner for a five-year term.
British companies are waiting to hear the details of what will replace the 130% ‘super-deduction’ next week, while Spain considers stopping a major infrastructure company moving to the Netherlands.
President Joe Biden wants to raise corporate tax and impose a higher stock buyback tax on US businesses, but his budget proposal faces insurmountable obstacles in Congress, writes Ralph Cunningham.
EY is still negotiating the terms of the plan to split its audit and consulting functions, but the future of tax services is reportedly a sticking point.
Country-by-country reporting is the best option for safe harbour provisions under the global anti-base erosion rules, according to tax directors at companies including Standard Chartered Bank and Pernod Ricard.